Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

No GP was a negotiator by default. The IMO had representatives taking part. Aside from the government's team, nobody else was a negotiator. Varadkar and Zero Craic were not involved in the negotiations. They had no official involvement.

Quoting from the legislation:

Communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members.

Communications forming part of, or directly related to: yes
negotiations on terms and conditions of employment: yes
undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members: depends

It was expected that the members of that trade union would be signing up to those terms and conditions, though that same trade union had not negotiated those terms and conditions in the first place. The purpose of providing the information to the president of the NAGP has been specifically defined as being to aid in the convincing of those members of the union to accede to that agreement.

The spirit of the law is clearly to safeguard unions conducting union business. It would be a hard job to argue that the president of the NAGP did not represent the NAGP, nor that the GP agreement did not concern GPs who were members of that union.

Just as an aside, the law also specifies that communication does not have to be in a formal setting, but can be entirely informal.

Edit: Looking more closely at the legislation, it seems that O'Tuanthail's actions can only be considered lobbying if it was done on behalf of NAGP members, but lobbying performed by trade unions (and similar organizations) are afforded a great deal of protection in relation to communication on behalf of their members.

Fann Linn

RandomName2 wrote: »

Quoting from the legislation:

Communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members.

Communications forming part of, or directly related to: yes
negotiations on terms and conditions of employment: yes
undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members: depends

It was expected that the members of that trade union would be signing up to those terms and conditions, though that same trade union had not negotiated those terms and conditions in the first place. The purpose of providing the information to the president of the NAGP has been specifically defined as being to aid in the convincing of those members of the union to accede to that agreement.

The spirit of the law is clearly to safeguard unions conducting union business. It would be a hard job to argue that the president of the NAGP did not represent the NAGP, nor that the GP agreement did not concern GPs who were members of that union.

Just as an aside, the law also specifies that communication does not have to be in a formal setting, but can be entirely informal.

Edit: Looking more closely at the legislation, it seems that O'Tuanthail's actions can only be considered lobbying if it was done on behalf of NAGP members, but lobbying performed by trade unions (and similar organizations) are afforded a great deal of protection in relation to communication on behalf of their members.

It seems more like 'clutching at straws'.

skimpydoo

Fann Linn wrote: »

It seems more like 'clutching at straws'.

Exactly if he was lobbying on behalf of NAGP, how come his members were still looking for the document after Dr Zero Craic had gotten it.

Muahahaha

RandomName2 wrote: »

Aren't trade unions exempt from lobbying laws?



https://www.lobbying.ie/help-resources/information-for-lobbyists/guidelines-for-people-carrying-on-lobbying-activities/are-you-affected-by-the-legislation/

The CEO of the NAGP Chris Goodey doesnt seem to think so, he registered himself as a lobbyist and made several returns anytime he did any lobbying on behalf of the NAGP. The NAGP lobbied the government 53 times during their short existance so there are multiple entries there showing them meeting lots of politicians. They saw themselves as lobbyists and therefore logged their lobbying activity as per the law.

O'Tuathill was lobbying both Simon Harris and Varadkar on behalf of the NAGP but he didnt even register as a lobbyist dont mind make any actual returns. Which would mean he is in breach of the Register of Lobbyists Act. Didnt he say on Twitter that he is thinking of emigrating to Australia? The Gardai might have something to say about that.

skimpydoo

Not long now till we see tomorrow's newspapers. Is a certain politician ****ting bricks as he knows more is about to come out? Look out for the deflection pieces. Look a squirrel over there.

RandomName2

Fann Linn wrote: »

It seems more like 'clutching at straws'.

It does indeed.

I know that's not what you mean, but this is another tangent, and when the actual law is brought up and it doesn't suit the narrative, it's just ignored.

The law clearly states that trade unions discussing trade union matters that affect its members do not have to be registered as a lobbying motion. That makes most of Muahahaha's point above, junk.

And yes, NAGP was registered as a trade union.

I don't know what specific benefits there might be to registering a lobbying motion, but the law seems to suggest, in no uncertain terms, that registering a motion when having communications that relate to the employment/working conditions of a trade union's members, is entirely optional.

I see that SIPTU has had 92 lobbying motions recorded in the last 5 years.

I'm going to guess they contacted and received information from the government and state representatives a bit more than 92 times in 5 years however. And that's fine. That's protected under the law.

Fann Linn

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does indeed.

I know that's not what you mean, but this is another tangent, and when the actual law is brought up and it doesn't suit the narrative, it's just ignored.

The law clearly states that trade unions discussing trade union matters that affect its members do not have to be registered as a lobbying motion. That makes most of Muahahaha's point above, junk.

And yes, NAGP was registered as a trade union.

I don't know what specific benefits there might be to registering a lobbying motion, but the law seems to suggest, in no uncertain terms, that registering a motion when having communications that relate to the employment/working conditions of a trade union's members, is entirely optional.

I see that SIPTU has had 92 lobbying motions recorded in the last 5 years.

I'm going to guess they contacted and received information from the government and state representatives a bit more than 92 times in 5 years however. And that's fine. That's protected under the law.

I doubt if Siptu or ICTU side stepped normal negotiation procedures or delegates, and asked the sitting Taoiseaach of the day for confidential documents regarding other unions.

skimpydoo

If O'Tuathill was doing things above board why didn't he go through the proper channels. He could have had a private meeting with Leo in the Dail, where he would have been brought through the document. Since this was not done, Leo is now in quite a pickle. Also no point saying saying trade unions don't have to register as lobbyists, since the NAGP was not registered to take part in negotiations.

caveat emptor

Fair play to whoever is investigating this. Must be tough given the political repercussions.

replace coppers with politicians below.


https://twitter.com/bestoflod/status/1373596208057442308?s=20

RandomName2

Fann Linn wrote: »

I doubt if Siptu or ICTU side stepped normal negotiation procedures

You believe that whenever SIPTU or ICTU has asked anything of a minister or Taoiseach that they filed this as lobbying? I find it hard to believe that you believe this. Now if you are saying that you wouldn't have to file this as lobbying, because not doing so is normal negotiation procedures, then we would both appear to be correct.

Fann Linn wrote: »

or delegates, and asked the sitting Taoiseaach of the day for confidential documents regarding other unions.

That directly affected members of their own union as those union members would be signing up to said confidential document? Way to deflect in relation to the actual lobbying legislation.

RandomName2

skimpydoo wrote: »

If O'Tuathill was doing things above board why didn't he go through the proper channels. He could have had a private meeting with Leo in the Dail, where he would have been brought through the document. Since this was not done, Leo is now in quite a pickle.

If we are still talking about lobbying, the legislation states that there are no such thing as proper channels. Email, face-to-face, and formal meetings are all considered as basically one and the same.

If we are talking more generally then there's a couple of answers, chief of which that O'Tuanthail simply didn't care.

skimpydoo wrote: »

Also no point saying saying trade unions don't have to register as lobbyists, since the NAGP was not registered to take part in negotiations.

Again, as the legislation states, trade unions appear to be exempt from this when the matters concerns employment conditions of their union. GPs who were members of the NAGP were clearly going to have their working conditions impacted by the new contract.

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

Not long now till we see tomorrow's newspapers. Is a certain politician ****ting bricks as he knows more is about to come out? Look out for the deflection pieces. Look a squirrel over there.

Anything of interest in the newspapers?

Jinglejangle69

skimpydoo wrote: »

Not long now till we see tomorrow's newspapers. Is a certain politician ****ting bricks as he knows more is about to come out? Look out for the deflection pieces. Look a squirrel over there.

Any squirrels around?

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

You believe that whenever SIPTU or ICTU has asked anything of a minister or Taoiseach that they filed this as lobbying? I find it hard to believe that you believe this. Now if you are saying that you wouldn't have to file this as lobbying, because not doing so is normal negotiation procedures, then we would both appear to be correct.



That directly affected members of their own union as those union members would be signing up to said confidential document? Way to deflect in relation to the actual lobbying legislation.

Just like most people reading this thread find it "hard to believe" that you believe Leo's apology was for how he leaked the agreement to OTuathail, rather than for leaking it at all.

It would be like someone apologisng to a judge for robbing a naggin in his coat pocket instead of his back pocket.

He was caught, fessed up and apologised - over to the peelers and the DPP now. Simple as that.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Just like most people reading this thread find it "hard to believe" that you believe Leo's apology was for how he leaked the agreement to OTuathail, rather than for leaking it at all.

It would be like someone apologisng to a judge for robbing a naggin in his coat pocket instead of his back pocket.

He was caught, fessed up and apologised - over to the peelers and the DPP now. Simple as that.

Peelers?

Can you explain that please, thanks.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Peelers?

Can you explain that please, thanks.

Very welcome to explain, yeah.

Peelers was the name given to the first police officers. They were named after Sir Robert Peel who introduced them, first in Ireland, and then in England. They were also known as Bobbies in England.

It's a slang word for the police, like "cops/rozzers/etc etc" both in Ireland and England.

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Very welcome to explain, yeah.



It's a slang word for the police both in Ireland and England.

It's a slang for An Garda Síochána?

Learn something new every day, thanks.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

It's a slang for An Garda Síochána?

Learn something new every day, thanks.

Not specifically, no.

It's a slang word for police in general. Not just for the guards.

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

It's a slang for An Garda Síochána?

Learn something new every day, thanks.

If you ever did Irish history at school you'd have known that!

Jinglejangle69

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you ever did Irish history at school you'd have known that!

Yeah mad how I have never heard anyone refer to the Gards as the peelers.

There ya go, every day is a learning day!

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah mad how I have never heard anyone refer to the Gards as the peelers.

There ya go, every day is a learning day!

It's in the national and secondary school history books!

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Peelers?

Can you explain that please, thanks.

“ peeler
a member of her majesty's constabulary: a police officer; especially in the United Kingdom and Australia. Derived from the name of Sir Robert Peel who developed the Metropolitan Police Act in 1928 which proved to be the foundation for the modern police force in Britain.”

It’s a British thing. Never in all my many years heard it used in Ireland.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah mad how I have never heard anyone refer to the Gards as the peelers.

There ya go, every day is a learning day!

,
Where I'm originally from (Derry/Donegal) it's more common to refer to the guards (or indeed the old RUC or the more recent incarnation PSNI) as the peelers.

It's a term Drew Harris would be fairly familiar with I'm sure.

Anyway enough deflection, back to Leo.

Time is running out, expect him to be charged or not in the next week or two, I'd say he's in awful shape mentally. He looked like he was fairly deflated and disheveled on the telly during the week. Mind you I believe his TV appearance was after him appearing to try and pre-empt his own case by telling us the DPP wouldn't charge him. So he was possibly after being lifted out of it by someone for that class act.

Jinglejangle69

[Deleted User] wrote: »

“ peeler
a member of her majesty's constabulary: a police officer; especially in the United Kingdom and Australia. Derived from the name of Sir Robert Peel who developed the Metropolitan Police Act in 1928 which proved to be the foundation for the modern police force in Britain.”

It’s a British thing. Never in all my many years heard it used in Ireland.

Me neither especially in 2021 when referring to An Garda síochána.

Great to learn these new things every day Mary isn't it!?

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

,
Where I'm originally from (Derry/Donegal) it's more common to refer to the guards (or indeed the old RUC or the more recent incarnation PSNI) as the peelers.

It's a term Drew Harris would be fairly familiar with I'm sure.

Anyway enough deflection, back to Leo.

Time is running out, expect him to be charged or not in the next week or two, I'd say he's in awful shape mentally. He looked like he was fairly deflated and disheveled on the telly during the week. Mind you I believe his TV appearance was after him appearing to try and pre-empt his own case by telling us the DPP wouldn't charge him. So he was possibly after being lifted out of it by someone for that class act.

Sure as you said its with the peelers and DPP now so let's wait.

I'm not spending my Sunday going around and around, have other plans.

But I know you enjoy it so have fun:)

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Just like most people reading this thread find it "hard to believe" that you believe Leo's apology was for how he leaked the agreement to OTuathail, rather than for leaking it at all.

I am replying to this just to indicate that I have read it, but I no longer believe that discussion of this is constructive. It has been clearly explained, multiple times. It was actually one of the most clear aspects in relation to all this, so I can only assume your confusion to be vexatious.

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Me neither especially in 2021 when referring to An Garda síochána.

Great to learn these new things every day Mary isn't it!?

Here's more from the Irish times, if it's a history lesson you're after and not just a deflection.

A conference marking 200 years of Irish policing is being held this weekend in Co Tipperary where Sir Robert Peel carried out his first experiments in professional policing. "Constables, Peelers and Civic Guards", will be addressed by prominent figures including the former RUC Chief Constable, Sir John Hermon.

AGS website.

The tradition of organised policing in Ireland can be traced back to the establishment of the County Constabulary in 1822. The County Constabulary was a uniformed police force formed on a regional basis.

Before this there existed a basic police force known as The Peace Preservation Force. This had been set up in 1816 through an act of the Westminster Parliament. This act was sponsored by Robert Peel, the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

I am replying to this just to indicate that I have read it, but I no longer believe that discussion of this is constructive. It has been clearly explained, multiple times. It was actually one of the most clear aspects in relation to all this, so I can only assume your confusion to be vexatious.

That's unfortunate for you.


His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

That's unfortunate for you.


His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.

He is not selling anyone a pup. It is in black and white in Varadkar's Dail statement, that is freely available on record if you wish to read again. It was clearly very carefully worded along with his legal team, to ensure he was careful as to what he was and, crucially, was not apologising for.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trying to be disingenuous by claiming someone literally quoting from a statement is "selling a pup".

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He is not selling anyone a pup. It is in black and white in Varadkar's Dail statement, that is freely available on record if you wish to read again. It was clearly very carefully worded along with his legal team, to ensure he was careful as to what he was and, crucially, was not apologising for.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trying to be disingenuous by claiming someone literally quoting from a statement is "selling a pup".

He said he sent it on a “confidential basis”, believing that publication of the agreement was imminent. Varadkar said he should have called the NAGP in for a briefing and gone through the document line by line, instead of passing it on in an informal manner.

So if he called zero craic in, in a formal matter (formal is the complete and utter opposite of informal) to go through it line by line, he wouldn't be leaking it.

not according to the prescribed, official, or customary way or manner; irregular; unofficial: informal proceedings. suitable to or characteristic of casual and familiar, but educated, speech or writing.

Yeah, anyone deliberately trying to misrepresent his apology as for his method, rather than for leaking it - period, is trying to sell a pup.

I'm quite happy to stand over that.

Lastly, can you formally and officially "leak" something behind the rest of your cabinets backs,?

That's an oxymoron, right?